Photojournalism: HDR and Panoramic

Mnemosyne

Would HDR and Panoramic be considered straight photography, or illustrations.

While I could see Panos being straight photography, because you aren't manipulating the photo, you're just adding more photos. Similar to shooting with a crop body and moving up to a full frame.

But HDR is different I think. Because an HDR image is NOT how it actually looked when it was taken. And you are manipulating, indirectly maybe, the colors, contrast and saturations. You are taking 3 "different" photos, and putting them together to create a new photo.

So, does anyone have an answer or thought? Pano and HDR: Illustration or not?

Candid Arts

I think HDR images could be considered photojournalism. They are photos that you took too depict an event, place, situation, emotion that you wanted depicted. There are manipulated photos all the time in photojournalism, and I don't mean crappy PS manipulations, but manipulations to better the photograph, message, etc...

Mnemosyne

But aren't those edits for better printing? I guess I saw HDR as more of an "artistic aesthetic." Maybe I'm wrong though

philipw

Mnemosyne wrote:

But aren't those edits for better printing? I guess I saw HDR as more of an "artistic aesthetic." Maybe I'm wrong though

They only thing we manipulate is for better printing - the RGB conversion to CMYK.

I can see your HDR pano being used as a feature image, not a news image. That would be seriously illegal in my industry and quite possibly career ending.

Philip

Candid Arts

Mnemosyne wrote:

But aren't those edits for better printing?

I don't understand...

Like for better quality fine art prints? Or better printing in magazines/newspapers? I think in photojournalistic pictures they are there to either document or inform. The information that the photo portrays is portrayed by how the photographer wants it to be portrayed. The message in the photo is composed by the photographer. If it takes an HDR for the photographer to put fourth that message, then so be it.

People all the time use bracketed exposures when doing shoots to make sure that they have a correct exposure for that situation where you DO NOT want to mess up the shot. So they pick just one of the exposures, why can't you use all three...four...nine?

Mnemosyne

I can see your HDR pano being used as a feature image, not a news image. That would be seriously illegal in my industry and quite possibly career ending.

I'm talking HDR OR Pano, not an HDR pano. Each on their own. And that's what I'm asking, would you have to label either of them an illustration? Or just one. That's what I'm curious about.

Like for better quality fine art prints? Or better printing in magazines/newspapers?

Just journalism. News.

So they pick just one of the exposures, why can't you use all three...four...nine?

There's a difference between the right one, and getting a pretty one. And that's what I'm getting at. HDR isn't "natural." It isn't what was in front of the photog as he shot his photo.

I don't believe there is any place in the world that you can walk up to, hold up an HDR image, and it would look 110% exactly like the real world scene. But my question revolves around the fact that you aren't altering the actual colors, or manipulating the physical images themselves. Is it an illustration because it's not natural, or a photo because you didn't manipulate the photos to get it?

The message in the photo is composed by the photographer. If it takes an HDR for the photographer to put fourth that message, then so be it.

Therein lies the conundrum. When I take my photos, I don't stack exposures to portray a message. I don't even involve myself in the photos at all. I look for everything I can to tell my story, and do whatever I can to get those shots. But I do my best to keep my interests out of them. So the fact that you mentioned "is portrayed by how the photographer wants it to be portrayed" already makes me think it's an illustration, and not pure straight photojournalism.

philipw

My apologies. I guess I misunderstood. I would consider it a photo illustration and label it as such. Sorry about that.

Philip

Mnemosyne

No worries. I was having trouble explaining it As you can see. I've just been curious about that. Because I've seen Panos labeled as photos, but I was curious. Cause it's a "created" photo so to speak, since the photo wasn't physically taken that way. But they're a succession of unedited unaltered photos. The end product is still a "photo" but it was created, and I've been curious about that.

Where as an HDR, like I said, is not what it looks like in reality, but it's not actually manipulated to alter the photo.

kdog

Mnemosyne wrote:

Where as an HDR, like I said, is not what it looks like in reality, but it's not actually manipulated to alter the photo.

There's nothing inherent about HDR technology that makes it any less real than any other photo. The human eye can detect 20 stops of light range, where a DSLR can capture around 8 stops. So as you can see, the DSLR comes up short and doesn't reproduce reality anyway. HDR gives you the ability to get your 20 stops back. How is that less real? Sure, the HDR tools also give you a huge palette of controls that can be used to achieve special effects like exagerating contrast and saturation. But why is that any different than using photoshop saturation, contrast and curves controls? Answer: it's not.

Regards,
-joel

agunther

I think this is a philosophical question with no right or wrong answer.
I am with Joel though.
The next step in the evolution of the camera may as well be a camera with a HDR sensor. Its not that far off, since photo sites for highlights can be much smaller and sit right next to the photo sites for shadows without affecting the fill factor too much. (I think Fuji once had a camera with a similar concept).
At some point people started shooting in color and a similar discussion was between black and white photographers and color photographers.

I think HDR is nothing different. Its an evolution of technology. Heck, even a wide-angle lens gives you a view very different from your own vision and yet we accept it as "real". Why not a higher dynamic range, higher color satuartion (velvia vs. provia films).

Is a long exposure cheating? After all, the camera can see an awfull lot more than we with the help of a tripod and a shutter release cable!